EEOC Appeal 2026003459

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Sector
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
Harriet M.,1
Complainant,
v.
Troy E. Meink,
Secretary,
Department of the Air Force,
Agency.
Appeal No. 2026003459
Agency No. 6W0B2500478
DECISION
Complainant 	filed 	a timely 	appeal with the Equal Employment 	Opportunity
Commission (EEOC or Commission) from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency
dated June 23, 2026, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the
settlement agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.402; 29
C.F.R. § 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405. For the following reasons, the
Commission finds that the Agency did not breach the settlement agreement.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this complaint, Complainant worked as a
Supervisory 	Police Officer, 10th 	Security 	Forces 	Squadron 	(10 	SFS) at 	the
Agency’s United States Air Force Academy (USAF Academy) in Colorado.
Believing that the Agency subjected her to unlawful discrimination, Complainant
1 	This 	case 	has 	been 	randomly 	assigned 	a 	pseudonym 	which 	will 	replace
Complainant’s 	name 	when 	the 	decision 	is 	published 	to 	non-parties 	and 	the
Commission’s website.

2026003459	2
contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On
August 12, 2025, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
1. 	…The Agency agrees to initiate a commander's inquiry into internal
issues within 10 Security Forces Squadron Alpha Flight, and for the
commander to take appropriate action deemed necessary to address
potential command climate factors.
By letter to the Agency dated May 19, 2026, Complainant alleged that the Agency
was 	in 	breach 	of 	the 	settlement 	agreement, 	and 	requested 	that 	the Agency
specifically implement its terms and for written clarification as to the status of the
commander’s inquiry. Specifically, Complainant alleged that the Agency breached
provision 	one 	of 	the 	settlement 	agreement 	when 	the 	Agency 	failed 	to
initiate/conduct a commander’s inquiry into internal issues within 10 SFS Alpha
Flight.
In its June 23, 2026, letter of determination, the Agency found that there was no
breach of the settlement agreement and all obligations under the agreement were
fully satisfied. In the Agency’s decision, the Agency details the 10 SFS’s response
to Complainant’s allegation. The 10 SFS response stated that an informal inquiry
was initiated within 10 SFS on September 15, 2025. However, before the inquiry
was completed, the matter was elevated to 10 Air Base Wing (10 ABW) leadership
after receiving an Inspector General complaint. As a result, on October 17, 2025, a
Colonel, 10 ABW Commander, initiated a Commander-Directed Investigation
encompassing the initial concerns along with the additional information from the
Investigator General’s Office. After consulting with the Judge Advocate, the
original inquiry was officially consolidated into the broader Commander-Directed
Investigation. Complainant was provided with the 865-page Commander-Directed
Inquiry report, and submitted a signed rebuttal on January 15, 2026. Following
review of the report and rebuttal, a Notice of Proposed Removal was issued on
May 	13, 	2026, 	and 	a 	final 	decision 	was 	expected. 	The 	Agency’s 	decision
determined that the Agency fulfilled its obligation under the settlement agreement
when the initial inquiry was initiated. Further, the decision found that the terms of
the settlement agreement did not restrict a commander’s authority to adapt or
elevate an ongoing inquiry in response to evolving facts and circumstances.

2026003459	3
The instant appeal followed. Complainant did not submit any arguments or
evidence in support of her appeal.
ANALYSIS
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. § 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement agreement
knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at any stage of the
complaint process, shall be binding on both parties. The Commission has held that
a settlement agreement constitutes a contract between the employee and the
Agency, to which ordinary rules of contract construction apply. See Herrington v.
Dep’t of Def., EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996).
The Commission has further held that it is the intent of the parties as expressed in
the 	contract, 	not 	some 	unexpressed 	intention, 	that 	controls 	the 	contract’s
construction. 	Eggleston 	v. 	Dep’t 	of 	Veterans 	Affairs, 	EEOC 	Request 	No.
05900795 (August 23, 1990). In ascertaining the intent of the parties with regard to
the terms of a settlement agreement, the Commission has generally relied on the
plain 	meaning 	rule. See Hyon O 	v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No.
05910787 (December 2, 1991). This rule states that if the writing appears to be
plain and unambiguous on its face, its meaning must be determined from the four
corners of the instrument without resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. See
Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Building Eng’g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir.
1984).
In the instant case, we concur with the Agency's decision finding no breach of the
Provision 1, cited above. Complainant alleged that the Agency breached Provision
1 because the intent and purpose of the settlement agreement was not actually
achieved when the informal inquiry into internal issues was consolidated into a
investigation centered on allegations against Complainant. See Breach File at 49-
50. Provision 1 only obligated the Agency to initiate an inquiry into internal issues
within 10 SFS Alpha Flight. The settlement agreement does not identify specific
internal issues to be investigated. Additionally, the settlement agreement did not
provide any specific process that the Agency had to follow when conducting the
inquiry. In settlement breach cases, the burden is always placed on the party
alleging breach to establish that a breach has occurred. See Mike T. v. Dep't of
Homeland Sec., EEOC Request No. 0520140553 (March 15, 2017); Porter v. U.S.
Postal 	Serv., 	EEOC 	Appeal 	No. 	01A54699 	(Dec. 	20, 	2005). 	Based 	on 	the

2026003459	4
foregoing, we find that Complainant has not met her burden that the Agency is in
breach of Provision 1 of the agreement.
CONCLUSION
We AFFIRM the Agency's final determination finding no breach of Provision 1 of
the settlement agreement.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M1125)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider this appellate decision if
Complainant or the Agency submits a written request that contains arguments or
evidence that tend to establish that:
1. 	The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of
material fact or law; or
2. 	The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies,
practices, or operations of the agency.
Requests for reconsideration must be filed with EEOC’s Office of Federal Sector
(OFS) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision. 	If the party
requesting reconsideration elects to file a statement or brief in support of the
request, that statement or brief must be filed together with the request for
reconsideration. A party shall have twenty (20) calendar days from receipt of
another party’s request for reconsideration within which to submit a brief or
statement 	in 	opposition. 	See 	29 	C.F.R. 	§ 	1614.405; 	Equal 	Employment
Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at
Chap. 9 § VII.B (Aug. 5, 2015).
Complainant should submit their request for reconsideration, and any statement or
brief in support of their request, via the EEOC Public Portal, which can be found at
https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx. 	Alternatively, 	Complainant 	can
submit their request and arguments to the Director, Office of Federal Sector, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, via regular mail addressed to P.O. Box
77960, Washington, DC 20013, or by certified mail addressed to 131 M Street,
NE, Washington, DC 20507. In the absence of a legible postmark, a complainant’s
request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if OFS receives it by mail within

2026003459	5
five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. 	See 29 C.F.R. §
1614.604.
An agency’s request for reconsideration must be submitted in digital format via the
EEOC’s Federal Sector EEO Portal (FedSEP). See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.403(g).
Either party’s request and/or statement or brief in opposition must also include
proof of service on the other party, unless Complainant files their request via the
EEOC Public Portal, in which case no proof of service is required.
Failure to file within the 30-day time period will result in dismissal of the party’s
request 	for 	reconsideration 	as 	untimely, 	unless 	extenuating 	circumstances
prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must
be submitted together with the request for reconsideration. The Commission
will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very
limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. § 1614.604(f).
COMPLAINANT’S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0124)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District
Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this
decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint
the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that
person by their full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the
dismissal of your case in court. “Agency” or “department” means the national
organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If
you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will
terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0815)
If you want to file a civil action but cannot pay the fees, costs, or security to do so,
you may request permission from the court to proceed with the civil action without
paying these fees or costs. Similarly, if you cannot afford an attorney to represent
you in the civil action, you may request the court to appoint an attorney for you.
You must submit the requests for waiver of court costs or appointment of an
attorney directly to the court, not the Commission. The court has the sole
discretion to grant or deny these types of requests.

2026003459	6
Such requests do not alter the time limits for filing a civil action (please read the
paragraph titled Complainant’s Right to File a Civil Action for the specific time
limits).
FOR THE COMMISSION:
T. Gimbrere
_____________________________ 	Acting Director's signature
T. Gimbrere, Acting Director
Office of Federal Sector
9/21/2026
Date